That’s not the take away you should be having here, it’s that a mega Corp felt that they should be allowed to create new content from someone else’s work, both without their permission and without paying
ok, fair; but do consider the context that the models are open weight. You can download them and use them for free.
There is a slight catch though which I’m very annoyed at: it’s not actually Apache. It’s this weird license where you can use the model commercially up until you have 700M Monthly users, which then you have to request a custom license from meta. ok, I kinda understand them not wanting companies like bytedance or google using their models just like that, but Mistral has their models on Apache-2.0 open weight so the context should definitely be reconsidered, especially for llama3.
It’s kind of a thing right now- publishers don’t want models trained on their books, „because it breaks copyright“ even though the model doesn’t actually remember copyrighted passages from the book. Many arguments hinge on the publishers being mad that you can prompt the model to repeat a copyrighted passage, which it can do. IMO this is a bullshit reason
anyway, will be an interesting two years as (hopefully) copyright will get turned inside out :)
Almost like the context matters and the world isn’t entirely made up of black and white binary choices because we’re not robots or computers and discrete logic does not apply to human moral arguments.
Conveniently, these moral arguments that are freed from the confines of discrete logic also allow people on /c/piracy to ignore the rules when justifying their own piracy, and still condemn others they already happen to dislike when they do piracy.
So IP law for individuals = bad, but IP law for corporations = good is the general argument here?
Is there a principled basis for this argument?
It seems like a lot of art like musicians or novelists rely almost entirely on earnings from selling their works to individuals. Wouldn’t a legal regime like you’re advocating basically make producing art for real people a lot less lucrative comparatively and drive those artists into making corporate art and marketing materials?
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." His point was that only small-minded men refused to rethink their prior beliefs.
The current top whipping boy is AI, apparently. “AI must be bad” is the highest level assumption, so apparently even in this piracy community that overrides the usual “copyright must be bad” assumption.
Or is it actually “Meta must be bad?” I’ve lost track of who the Five Minutes Hate is supposed to be directed at lately.
That’s not the take away you should be having here, it’s that a mega Corp felt that they should be allowed to create new content from someone else’s work, both without their permission and without paying
ok, fair; but do consider the context that the models are open weight. You can download them and use them for free.
There is a slight catch though which I’m very annoyed at: it’s not actually Apache. It’s this weird license where you can use the model commercially up until you have 700M Monthly users, which then you have to request a custom license from meta. ok, I kinda understand them not wanting companies like bytedance or google using their models just like that, but Mistral has their models on Apache-2.0 open weight so the context should definitely be reconsidered, especially for llama3.
It’s kind of a thing right now- publishers don’t want models trained on their books, „because it breaks copyright“ even though the model doesn’t actually remember copyrighted passages from the book. Many arguments hinge on the publishers being mad that you can prompt the model to repeat a copyrighted passage, which it can do. IMO this is a bullshit reason
anyway, will be an interesting two years as (hopefully) copyright will get turned inside out :)
Lemmy sure loves copyright and intellectual property once you change who the pirate is.
Almost like the context matters and the world isn’t entirely made up of black and white binary choices because we’re not robots or computers and discrete logic does not apply to human moral arguments.
Conveniently, these moral arguments that are freed from the confines of discrete logic also allow people on /c/piracy to ignore the rules when justifying their own piracy, and still condemn others they already happen to dislike when they do piracy.
because company and individual are same
So IP law for individuals = bad, but IP law for corporations = good is the general argument here?
Is there a principled basis for this argument?
It seems like a lot of art like musicians or novelists rely almost entirely on earnings from selling their works to individuals. Wouldn’t a legal regime like you’re advocating basically make producing art for real people a lot less lucrative comparatively and drive those artists into making corporate art and marketing materials?
does only selling to individual prevent company from pirating
That’s like saying everyone should let people enjoy their kinks and you come in and say "aha, then pedophilia is allowed, ya?
Ralph Waldo Emerson:
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." His point was that only small-minded men refused to rethink their prior beliefs.
The current top whipping boy is AI, apparently. “AI must be bad” is the highest level assumption, so apparently even in this piracy community that overrides the usual “copyright must be bad” assumption.
Or is it actually “Meta must be bad?” I’ve lost track of who the Five Minutes Hate is supposed to be directed at lately.
You have a very small pool of thinking capacity
I’ve lost track because I don’t care who the whipping boy is supposed to be. I form my own opinions.
facebook is bad